Posted on 03/28/2005 7:16:39 PM PST by Pikamax
But giving a treaty the scope of national law, in this instance, does not simply specify law in an area that is already under federal jusrisdiction (like entry to ports or foreign trade). It extends it into interfering with state sovereignty with an authority that I would think even the Congress (if not the SCOTUS) would blush to assert.
The clause explicitly includes the notions that the judges of every state would be bound to these provisions, that is unless the treaty is in contravention with the Constitution or state law, and neither the Vienna convention or the ICJ statute have been found to do so.
Aside from Constitutionality, this is an issue of reciprocity. U.S. nationals would expect to seek counsel with our consulates if we were abroad as well and were charged, rightly or wrongly, with a serious crime.
Exactly. Not that I ever anticipate being arrested in a foreign country, this treaty protects Americans too.
Let's review the language of the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." By admitting that Mexican citizens who are here illegally require assistance from foreign consular officials when arrested or a crime it is a tacit admission that they have not totally submitted themselves to the full jurisdiction of the United States.
Anyone agree with me? If so, we can begin the process of litigating this and begin to close the door to Mexican anchor babies.
a) the original meaning of the clause concerned trade provisions, alliances, and matters of war and peace: How did this extend to matters of civil procedure?
b)I am not surprised that the Federal Courts, which have an insatiable institutional bias to extend their jurisdiction, have found that the Vienna Convention and ICJ are not in contravention with the constitution or state law-- my point is, How does the treaty clause give the authority to the Federal government, acting only through the President and the Senate, to change the rules of procedure for state courts?
c)Regarding the issue that this affects American abroad: that is not a legal argument, but a prudential one, so that si not the issue.
I am becoming disillusioned, and very, very angry about Bush's love affair with those criminals from south of the border.
Bush (hell, BOTH Bushes) is/are more of the same all-Yale-all-the-time East Coast elite. He tossed us just enough in the way of bread and circuses, knowing we were so starved for anything even remotely resembling conservative leadership after 8 years in Clinton hell to get himself re-elected. Now we will see the true heart of this phony Christian Republican revealed. Essentially erase the boarder. Vilify true patriots for daring to stand up to the criminally negligent government. Pull his forelock inf ront of a tyrannical judiciary and expect us to do the same. Am I the only one worried by how much time old man Bush and the impeached former occupant of the oral office are seen together? Does Hillary have something on the Shrubs? 700 plus files (some say as many as 900) were in Billary's possession and I guarantee they have heard of Xerox machines. Has a deal been cut between the Shrubs/Toon's? Is all hell going to break loose if Bruno doesn't receive the Presidency as is her due? Stay tuned. Something IS going on here, people. We're being lied to on all sides and being driven.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.